Shu-Li Hu wrote in her article that Jack Ma violated the spirit of the contract. However, the spirit of the contract is established on the foundation of the rules. In addition, Jack Ma hasn’t broken the rules, but he just broken the unreasonable unspoken rules. Then problems come up.
Recently, the disputes about the ownership transfer have gone beyond the internet industry and the area of venture industry and became a public topic. Many bloggers, presses and even individuals expressed their opinions. All the people think that they have found the truth, but the truth is different in different people’s eyes. This simple and obvious equity stake dispute has become the confusing Rashomon. In the view of Jack Ma, the ownership transfer of Alipay was one hundred percent legal and was consistent with the interests of the majority shareholders. However, the largest two shareholders Yahoo and Softbank held the opposite opinion. In addition, in the eye of the media person Shu-Li Hu, Jack Ma has violated the principle of contract. A large company’s CEO wrote on his micro blog that Jack Ma was a patriot. Some net citizens said that Jack Ma was a thief. However, other citizens said that he was a hero.
This dispute has become so complex. It seems that everyone’s opinion sounds sense. Indeed, there are some more complicated truths about this issue. The policies, laws, rules, hidden rules, contract principles, individual factors, the historical factors and so on are all get involved in this issue. It may be not significant to tell the truth. The road of the Alibaba Group and Alipay in the future is more important.
ross jo's blog 